BLINDING OUT CONTROVERSY

We recently had a very large No Limit Holdem Tourney at my house. The blinds were at something like 6 and 12. We had a major controversy because someone at the table only had "4" chips and wanted to continue to stay in. Obviously they did not have enough to make the big blind or the minimum bet. What is the proper procedure on how to handle this? A couple of people want the rule for what happens here on paper. Can someone help me?

Whenever it's time for them to put in a blind again they just put what they have in the middle and it makes a side pot. Same goes if they're not in the blind and decide to "take a stand."

So you can make a play without having enough to make the minimum bet? What does the term "blinding out" refer to? Is it normal to lower the bet so someone can stay in the game with less than the minimum bet? Someone contested that the person who didn't have enough chips would "blind out".

Originally Posted by jayjohn24

What does the term "blinding out" refer to?

Thats a tournament thing. The blinds are big and you have a shortstack so you cant afford to wait for a premium hand. You have to take a stand with something like 88 to avoid blinding out.

Originally Posted by jayjohn24

Is it normal to lower the bet so someone can stay in the game with less than the minimum bet?

You do not lower the bet. It just makes a side pot.

Assume the blinds are 50/100 and he is in the BB with only 75 chips.

UTG limps in, betting 100 chips.
Someone in MP calls for 100 chips.
The SB completes bringing his contribution up to 100 chips.

The BB only has 75. So the main pot becomes 75 from the BB + 75 from UTG + 75 from MP + 75 from SB for 300 chips. Whoever wins the hand, wins this pot.

A side pot is created containing 25 from UTG + 25 from MP + 25 from the SB for 75 chips. Whoever wins the hand between the UTG, MP and SB wins this pot. The short stacked BB cannot win this money.

The important point to note is that, though the BB has only contributed 75 chips, the minimum bet is still 100 chips. In the above example, the UTG could not toss in 75 chips to match the BB's bet (unless UTG also did not have 100 chips). It's still 100 chips to call.

I think this is the classical blinding out situation.

Your buddy has 4 chips. he keeps folding, and now he is the big blind, and is supposed to put 12 chips in. He only has 4, so he puts the 4 in, which is correct that he can do it, and has to do it, and he can win a part of this main pot, as was described in the post before this. Typically he will flip crap cards and lose and be gone.

blinding out doesn't so much mean you are forfeiting anything, as I think you're taking it to mean, it means waiting until the blinds are huge in relation to your stack such that you have to play any 2 or are put all in by the blind.

it in general is pathetic to blind out, because you are better off pushing somewhere with a 30% chance of winning a nice sized pot, than pushing at the last second with a 30% chance of still being up shit creek for another orbit.

Originally Posted by Greedo017

it in general is pathetic to blind out, because you are better off pushing somewhere with a 30% chance of winning a nice sized pot, than pushing at the last second with a 30% chance of still being up shit creek for another orbit.

It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?

Originally Posted by Pelion

It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?

Better to make a stand when you have *some* folding equity rather than when it's obvious you're simply playing "any two" b/c you have to.

And I agree on the general consenus here, the poker rules are already pretty clear about this.. it's a side-pot thing. If he can only bet 4 when the BB is 12, he is on a side-pot where everyone puts in 4 of their bets and play the rest in the main pot amongst themselves. Seems pretty standard.

Thanks for clearing it up. I appreciate it. Drunk and stupid guys just like to argue for the hell of it. They've got some issues. Thanks again guys.

Originally Posted by Pelion

It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?

yes

Originally Posted by Greedo017

Originally Posted by Pelion

It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees?

yes

i just like that quote

Originally Posted by jayjohn24

Thanks for clearing it up. I appreciate it. Drunk and stupid guys just like to argue for the hell of it. They've got some issues. Thanks again guys.

BTW, Welcome to FTR.

Originally Posted by Pelion

Originally Posted by jayjohn24

What does the term "blinding out" refer to?

Thats a tournament thing. The blinds are big and you have a shortstack so you cant afford to wait for a premium hand. You have to take a stand with something like 88 to avoid blinding out.

Or T6o or something of the sort, depending on how low you are getting...